BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a clip of members of Action Zealandia shown in the documentary Patrick Gower: On Hate breached the fairness standard. The clip, approximately four seconds long, showed several unidentifiable members walking with a flag bearing Action Zealandia’s symbol. The complainant alleged that the broadcast unfairly associated the group with terrorism, and that Action Zealandia should have been given the opportunity to comment. The Authority considered the group’s participation was minor in the context of the broadcast. The broadcaster was therefore not required to inform Action Zealandia that the clip would be featured. It further found that the broadcaster was not obliged to give Action Zealandia an opportunity to comment as part of the documentary.

Not Upheld: Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  On 31 August 2021, the documentary Patrick Gower: On Hate aired on Three. In this documentary, Patrick Gower investigated issues around the 15 March 2019 terrorist attack, including whether it could have been prevented.

[2]  As part of a discussion around a Royal Commission of Inquiry finding that the attack could not have been prevented, the documentary includes the following commentary:

Gower:            The terrorist even accidentally shot himself eight months before the attack and went to hospital. But the injury was not reported to the police, and although the terrorist visited and posted on white supremacy forums, he was not on any watch list. Because he kept his actual plans for the attacks offline, the Royal Commission concluded that the terrorist attack could not have been prevented. But Paparoa, an anonymous research collective, disagrees.

Paparoa rep:   There were measures that they could have taken to identify the Christchurch terrorist as a threat.

Gower:            The group has investigated several Kiwi white supremacists by scanning their websites and social media, and they say spies could have used the same techniques to find him.

[3]  During this last statement, a montage of footage of apparent (unidentifiable) white supremacists is shown, including a shot of members of Action Zealandia walking down a path. They are wearing face coverings and hats, and the rest of their faces have been blurred out. The group is only identifiable as Action Zealandia as one person is carrying a large flag with the group’s symbol on it, and the symbol is also present in the bottom left hand corner of the screen.

The complaint

[4]  Michael Engleby alleged that use of the clip of members of Action Zealandia breached the fairness standard. He argued:

• The use of the clip unfairly associated Action Zealandia with acts of terrorism, violence and murder, when Action Zealandia ‘never condoned or supported and has repeatedly distanced itself from’ the March 15 terrorist.
• ·These types of associations could have negative consequences for members of the group.
• Despite using footage of the group, the broadcaster did not approach the group for comment or participation in the broadcast.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Discovery did not uphold the complaint. It advised:

• No white supremacist organisations or individuals were named in the documentary, which was a deliberate editorial decision.
• ‘The footage containing Action Zealandia was fleeting within the broadcast overall and was used to provide context to the audience about white supremacist groups in general in New Zealand and how they have been monitored.’
• ‘In the context of this victim-led documentary with a focus on giving voice to the Muslim community, the Committee is satisfied that showing the brief footage of Action Zealandia constitutes a “minor participation in the context of the programme.”’
• Given these factors, it was not required to inform Action Zealandia of the broadcast, and the fairness standard was not breached.

The standards

[6]  The fairness standard¹ states that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme. The purpose of this standard is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.² Broadcast participants should also be informed, before the broadcast, of the nature of their proposed contribution except where justified in the public interest or where their participation is minor in the context of the programme.³

[7]  If a person or organisation referred to during a broadcast might be adversely affected, they should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, before a broadcast. What is fair and reasonable will depend on the circumstances.⁴

Our analysis

[8]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[9]  We have also considered the right to freedom of expression, which is our starting point. This includes the broadcaster’s right to offer a range of information and the audience’s right to receive it. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the broadcast has caused actual or potential harm at a level that outweighs the right to freedom of expression.

[10]  In determining whether the broadcast breached the fairness standard, the following contextual factors are particularly relevant:

• The footage is shown in the context of a wider discussion of the monitoring of white supremacy groups and individuals, and not specifically in relation to the attacks. It does not state or imply that those depicted supported or condoned the terrorist’s actions.
• The individuals in the clip were not identifiable, and Action Zealandia was not named or otherwise specifically referred to.
• The clip of Action Zealandia members is brief, being around 4 seconds in the context of a 56 minute documentary (including ad breaks).

[11]  On the basis of these factors, we consider Action Zealandia’s participation in the broadcast, being a brief clip of several unidentifiable members walking with their flag, was minor in the context. It follows that Action Zealandia was not required to be informed before the broadcast that the clip would be featured.

[12]  Further, as the members shown were unidentifiable as individuals, and as a group Action Zealandia was not named or directly linked to the terrorist attacks, the broadcaster was not obliged to give Action Zealandia an opportunity to comment.⁵

For the above reasons, the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Acting Chair
1 December 2021   

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Michael Engleby’s initial complaint to Discovery – 1 September 2021

2  Discovery’s response to initial complaint – 27 September 2021

3  Engleby’s referral to the Authority – 27 September 2021

4  Discovery’s confirmation of no further comments – 8 October 2021

¹ Standard 11 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
³ Guideline 11b
⁴ Guideline 11d
⁵ Guideline 11(d)